AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,17,680/- (Rs. Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) (Including Cesses) for the period from October'14 to March'15 under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act,1994 read with Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017 alongwith interest payable under Section 75 of the finance Act, 1994 (ii) I hereby confirm the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,13,981/- (Rs. Two Lakh thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eight One only) (Including Cesses) for the period from April'14 to Sept'15 under Section 73A(4) of the Finance Act,1994 read with Section 174(2) of the central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017 alongwith interest payable under Section 73B of the Finance Act, 1994 (iii) I drop balance demand of Rs.1,85,77,079/- out of total demand of Rs. 1,90,08,740/- raised against the party as discussed supra. (iv) I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 2,17,680/- (Rs. Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) under Section 78 of the finance Act,1994 read with Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017 in respect of demand for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....5 Appellant filed reply to the show cause notice vide their letter dated 11.11.2021 submitted by them at the time of personal hearing on 11.11.2021. They filed additional written submissions vide their letter dated 23.11.2021. After consideration of the submissions made during the course of personal hearing and in the written submissions filed, the show cause notice was adjudicated as per the order in original referred in para 1.2 above. 2.6 Aggrieved Appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. 2.7 Aggrieved Appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Pankaj Pandey, Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the Appellant learned counsel submits that: In the present case the show cause notice was received by the Appellant by e-mail and not in the manner as provided in law. In absence of the service of show cause notice in the manner prescribed, the entire proceedings are non est in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions Metal Powder Company Ltd. [1997 (89)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected in excess of the tax assessed or determined and paid for any taxable service under this Chapter or the rules made thereunder from the recipient of such service, the person who is liable to pay such amount as determined under sub-section (4) of section 73A, shall, in addition to the amount, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten per cent, and not exceeding twenty-four per cent, per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the amount ought to have been paid under this Chapter, but for the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 73A, till the date of payment of such amount I further find that in this regard the Board had vide its letter bearing No. 334/4/2006-TRU dated 28-2-2006, so issued with respect to clarifications regarding Budget 2006-07, inter alia clarified that: Amendments in the Act : (1) Finance Act, 1994 is being amended to :- (h) (i) provide for voluntary payment by an assessee of any amount collected in excess of the service tax leviable but not deposited with the Central Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax collected but not deposited with Government but kept in escrow account - Appellant Revenue submitting that Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994 was mandatory, thus, even disputed tax collected must be deposited - Petition for special leave to appeal admitted and notice issued - Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 4.6 As regarding demand of Rs.2,17,680/- for the period October, 2014 to March, 2015, the Appellant has contended that the extended period of time period was not available for raising the subject demand as they had declared the said consideration in their income tax returns and on this account the whole demand being vague and further, that penalty was not imposable upon them. In this regard I find that the genesis of the subject case is vested in the third party data received from the Income Tax Department. As regarding the said data sharing between the CBIC and CBDT, I find that the same is in terms of approved policy of the Government of India to inter alia track tax evasion and in this regard earlier an MOU was signed between the CBDT and the erstwhile CBEC in the year 2015 and later, with the introduction of GST and other allied changes, in supersession ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following cases, with the ratio thereof being applicable to service tax cases: (i) Inox Leisure Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2016 (42)STR 497 (Trib-Mumbai)] :: Held :: Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Invocation of - Suppression of facts - Responsibility cast on Appellant to furnish details to authorities at prescribed frequency under Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and declare services rendered, assess tax due and make payment of Service Tax by due date - Non-payment of Service Tax came to light in pursuance to investigation- Extended period of limitation sustainable - There being suppression of fact, penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 warranted- Interest payable - Appropriate penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid payable. This Order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in its judgement the Learned Court held that Demand Limitation - Extended period invocable for failure of registered assessee to furnish details and to pay Service Tax under the Rule [2016 (44) STR J 276 (SC)]; (ii) Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & Cus., Visakhapatnam-II [2019 (C27) G.S.T.L. 363 Tri.- Hyd.)|: Held: Demand- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose lower penalty than equal amount not provided - Penalty payable at 25% if duty determined paid within thirty days and no discretion to reduce 25% penalty in such cases - Supreme Court confirming Tribunal decision in 2003 (161)E.LT. 285 rendered before amendment to relevant provisions - Penalty equal to duty imposable from 11- 5-2001 if duty demand confirmed for intentional evasion - Section 11AC ibid. [Parallel provisions in Service Tax matters]: (viii) UOI Vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)] :: Held ;: Penalty - Mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 not applicable to every case of non-payment or short-payment of duty - Conditions mentioned in Section 11AC ibid should exist for penalty thereunder - Authorities having no discretion on quantum and penalty equal to duty must be imposed once Section 11AC ibid is applicable. [Parallel provisions in Service Tax matters]. 4.3 The only ground pressed by the counsel for the Appellant at the time of hearing was that in the present case the show cause notice was not served on Appellant in the manner prescribed and was delivered to them on e-mail. Without the service of the s....